Explaining why and what an artist is is of little importance. I do not consider myself an artist and likely never will consider it. By default of society my path will be laid.
Often it is that which is not said that is most important.
So called "creative options" as Linda Weintraub puts it; the artist has choices that have never been available. Of course just as in the guild system, today, to reach the desired outcome one must still put in the appropriate input. Though there are today more democratized forms of art such as, graphic design, due to the growth of middle class. Though in a way, it is still the few that pay for it by gleaning money from the bottom. Just because the government or corporation pay for it and put it in galleries for the commoners to see doesn't make it different than church commissions during the medieval times.
Having restrictions on the possibilities for creative representation of ideas is the very reason cultural progress is made. Expansion of ideas take place where there are no preconceived notion of the possibilities for expansion, otherwise the idea must have had already taken hold. Today the common thought is that all possibilities for change have been executed. Of course, that cannot be the case.
The text seems to romanticize about the contemporary artist and art, by explaining how today is grander by the diversification of ideas that art and artist represent. This viewpoint is egocentric and dismisses the past as merely the stuff that happened before me. Art is a product of environment not that of the individual.